CanOfCorn Posted November 13, 2006 Share Posted November 13, 2006 Ellison was elected by his constituency. They know he's a Muslim and they still elected him. End of story. As has been said before, this country is based on freedom. If he wants to swear using a Quran, let him do that. And Lieberman swore on a Bible, the original...cuz we all know the sequel is never as good as the original. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sox4lifeinPA Posted November 13, 2006 Share Posted November 13, 2006 QUOTE(CanOfCorn @ Nov 13, 2006 -> 12:48 PM) Ellison was elected by his constituency. They know he's a Muslim and they still elected him. End of story. As has been said before, this country is based on freedom. If he wants to swear using a Quran, let him do that. And Lieberman swore on a Bible, the original...cuz we all know the sequel is never as good as the original. They also elected Jesse Ventura knowing he was a WWF wrestler...so their judgment is still in question Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pale Hose Jon Posted November 13, 2006 Share Posted November 13, 2006 QUOTE(Reddy @ Nov 13, 2006 -> 01:13 AM) theres one huge flaw in your argument... the founding fathers were not mostly christian but Deists... guess your post was pointless... Ding Ding Ding I have not yet seen where the premises of this argument have come from. I have seen nothing that has stated that the constitution is based on the bible. This argument is further weakened by the quote above. Our constitution writers were members of the Age of Reason, and many, (but not all) were deists. Perhaps both the bible and the constitution are based on the same principles but that does not necissarily mean the the constitution was based on the bible. Post hoc ergo propter hoc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanOfCorn Posted November 13, 2006 Share Posted November 13, 2006 QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Nov 13, 2006 -> 11:55 AM) They also elected Jesse Ventura knowing he was a WWF wrestler...so their judgment is still in question Good point! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted November 13, 2006 Share Posted November 13, 2006 QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Nov 13, 2006 -> 08:19 AM) Did I ever claim it didn't? I was adressing a falsehood in LCRs statement, not the history of Christianity. Believe me I know if I asked, I would get a thesis on every evil ever done in its name. Just adding to the conversation. I thought I was agreeing and adding to your point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted November 14, 2006 Share Posted November 14, 2006 plus I feel the best way to know what was going on in the founding fathers heads is to read the federalist papers. And never in reading many of those did i read that these laws were being formed after the christian bible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted November 15, 2006 Share Posted November 15, 2006 QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Nov 13, 2006 -> 08:19 AM) Did I ever claim it didn't? I was adressing a falsehood in LCRs statement, not the history of Christianity. Believe me I know if I asked, I would get a thesis on every evil ever done in its name. The thing is that Pipes' invisible radar seems to kick in just when there is somebody who disagrees with his hardline stance. That's the comedy I was addressing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mplssoxfan Posted November 15, 2006 Share Posted November 15, 2006 Serious question for those of you who are a little leery of Ellison's swearing on the Koran... If you were empaneled on a jury, and the prosceution's star witness was Muslim and took his/her oath on the Koran, would you be less likely to believe his/her testimony? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted November 15, 2006 Share Posted November 15, 2006 QUOTE(Mplssoxfan @ Nov 15, 2006 -> 02:30 PM) Serious question for those of you who are a little leery of Ellison's swearing on the Koran... If you were empaneled on a jury, and the prosceution's star witness was Muslim and took his/her oath on the Koran, would you be less likely to believe his/her testimony? I'd be less likely to believe a person's testimony if they were Muslim/Jewish/something else and were forced to take their oath on the Bible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted November 15, 2006 Share Posted November 15, 2006 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Nov 15, 2006 -> 04:34 PM) I'd be less likely to believe a person's testimony if they were Muslim/Jewish/something else and were forced to take their oath on the Bible. you still haven't fully addressed the issue of PA swearing in on a McDonalds value menu. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted November 15, 2006 Share Posted November 15, 2006 QUOTE(mr_genius @ Nov 15, 2006 -> 04:46 PM) you still haven't fully addressed the issue of PA swearing in on a McDonalds value menu. If some morbidly overweight dude with crumbs all over his shirt and a "25 years of service at McDonald's" pin on his lapel was being sworn in on a McDonald's value menu... I'd probably accept that he met that legal hurdle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted November 15, 2006 Share Posted November 15, 2006 QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 15, 2006 -> 04:53 PM) If some morbidly overweight dude with crumbs all over his shirt and a "25 years of service at McDonald's" pin on his lapel was being sworn in on a McDonald's value menu... I'd probably accept that he met that legal hurdle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sox4lifeinPA Posted November 15, 2006 Share Posted November 15, 2006 QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 15, 2006 -> 05:53 PM) If some morbidly overweight dude with crumbs all over his shirt and a "25 years of service at McDonald's" pin on his lapel was being sworn in on a McDonald's value menu... I'd probably accept that he met that legal hurdle. of course you weren't trying to slander me... and of course you weren't trying to stereotype mcdonald's workers and/or patrons of that restaurant.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Nov 15, 2006 -> 05:38 PM) of course you weren't trying to slander me... and of course you weren't trying to stereotype mcdonald's workers and/or patrons of that restaurant.... Of course not. And of course the good citizen from Pennsylvania's original comment wasn't meant as a slight against those who would swear on holy books other than the Bible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sox4lifeinPA Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 15, 2006 -> 07:11 PM) Of course not. And of course the good citizen from Pennsylvania's original comment wasn't meant as a slight against those who would swear on holy books other than the Bible. actually, I was being serious by being funny. Does it really matter WHAT people swear on? Shouldn't we give accurate testimony to anything and everything to the best of our ability regardless of what just happens to be holding up my resting hand at that moment? just saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Nov 15, 2006 -> 06:22 PM) actually, I was being serious by being funny. Does it really matter WHAT people swear on? Shouldn't we give accurate testimony to anything and everything to the best of our ability regardless of what just happens to be holding up my resting hand at that moment? just saying. Definitely agree. I think the idea that anyone is offended or bothered by what someone is sworn in on has missed the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 15, 2006 -> 06:51 PM) Definitely agree. I think the idea that anyone is offended or bothered by what someone is sworn in on has missed the point. dude, you said he was obese and a sloppy eater. you also implied he would show up to be sworn in wearing a mcDonalds uniform. for shame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 QUOTE(mr_genius @ Nov 15, 2006 -> 08:33 PM) dude, you said he was obese and a sloppy eater. you also implied he would show up to be sworn in wearing a mcDonalds uniform. for shame. And despite all that, I wouldn't care what he swore in on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted November 30, 2006 Share Posted November 30, 2006 (edited) So, according to the House Clerk's office and some reporting by the Center for American Progress...the oath for the House of Representatives is generally taken by raising one's right hand and swearing to uphold the constitution. According to CAP and the House Clerk, no book, religious text, or any other text is actually used in the ceremony, nor has it ever been so. In other words, if this reporting is correct, this entire controversy appears to have been made-up in an effort to try to find a way to go after/smear this Congressman. Edited November 30, 2006 by Balta1701 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted December 1, 2006 Share Posted December 1, 2006 Gee, I'm shocked Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts